Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

I meant that it would be nice if JVC supported that. I'm not sure if you are asking how we would set it to do that or how JVC could implement that feature in the future though.
I agree.

I was thinking that it seemed like JVC was doing both iris and gamma adjustments quickly on a camera angle change and then doing more gamma adjustments over the next second or two, based on what I saw, and not just that their implementation was slow on adjusting anything (other than on opening up from blackouts). I would have to watch the iris during the scene from The International and other scenes to get a better idea though. Maybe with a mirror so I could see the screen and iris at the same time.

I don't know if JVC needs the extra time to decide on the gamma based on processing time or if this is a side effect of their current software implementation that could be changed without any hardware changes.

If JVC (or Sony or any other manufacturer) had a mechanism to delay the video a couple of seconds it seems like they could make better choices between slow and fast changes. This is something that some of us discussed years ago. I wonder if any of the manufacturers will ever add an audio out on their projectors for delays for dynamic systems or from other processing (like frame interpolation).

--Darin

Most audio processors and AVRs have audio delay adjustments already. If they just specified what the delay of the processing was it would probably be enough (so long as it could be defeated for those that don't have this option). Since the PJ isn't the source it would be very hard to have any control of the audio signal in the projector, so they'd just have to tell you how much to offset your existing audio. Audio compensations are pretty common for video processors like the Lumagen or DVDO when you start doing a lot of tweaking to video signal. Mine is being delayed like 160ms at the moment.

You know much more than I do on the subject, but I was wondering if the "slowness" of the JVC was not by design. Because they have a much higher native on/off contrast, maybe they designed their DI so that it doesn't do any swift changes, almost as if to smoothen the curve of the iris variations, precisely to avoid the kind of pumping seen in the Spiderman scene with the Sony. Because the native on/off is much lower, Sony doesn't have the luxury to take any time, it simply has to be very fast to be able to adjust quickly from high APL scene to a low APL one. This leads to very unfrequent pumping in freak scenes like the Spiderman one, because the APL level between the two scenes is very similar, but different enough to trigger a change. So the Sony implementation (in limited) is invisible 99% of the time, especially with abrupt APL changes, but gets "caught" by a borderline scene like the Spidey one.

I have no idea if this is true or not, and I am not sure how this would be implemented, but I read somewhere that Sony had put together a kind of database of key transitions and had modelled its iris reactions based on real content. So maybe the kind of situation triggered by the Spiderman scene is not in the database (yet), and the problem could be solved simply by adding it. Apart from that scene and a few others where the effect was less pronounced, I was very impressed by the Sony Iris in Limited mode, as it was almost invisible. I hope I'll like the JVC implementation as much or better, all the reports sound very promising in any case.

I also hope you'll find more time to dedicate to video in the future, we need you more around here!

The problem isn't the speed of the iris with the JVC, it is the speed of the gamma changes. I don't think Darin and I saw any "image pumping" that I would associate with the iris but there were definitely scenes that you saw the gamma shifting and trying to decide where it wanted to end up. This not only effects the color balance but also the detail of a scene. I saw this quite a few times with the scene from The International but didn't see any issues when we looked at the scenes from Riddick. Considering how much the iris looked like it was moving in the lens during some scenes in Riddick I was actually surprised we didn't see any obvious image pumping. In this regard they seem to be doing a pretty spectacular job.

While it sounds like a good idea the projector shouldn't need much in terms of "basic controls". I would recommend just setting the HDMI to standard and not touching any of the "basic" controls as they do more damage than good. I would suggest the standard color profile and a gamma of 2.3. After all of this you can adjust the black level adjustment in the gamma menu (where you selected 2.3) until you see digital 18 (or maybe 17, but I doubt you'll see that). After that you should be good for awhile other than any adjustments to display enhancements you want to use (clear motion, e-shift, clear black, etc).

Thanks Kris! That's just the kind of straight forward guidance that a 57 year old less than super techie HT fanatic needs. (not to mention budgetary limitations)

The problem isn't the speed of the iris with the JVC, it is the speed of the gamma changes. I don't think Darin and I saw any "image pumping" that I would associate with the iris but there were definitely scenes that you saw the gamma shifting and trying to decide where it wanted to end up. This not only effects the color balance but also the detail of a scene. I saw this quite a few times with the scene from The International but didn't see any issues when we looked at the scenes from Riddick. Considering how much the iris looked like it was moving in the lens during some scenes in Riddick I was actually surprised we didn't see any obvious image pumping. In this regard they seem to be doing a pretty spectacular job.

Thanks for the clarification Kris, and sorry for the confusion, when I mentioned the speed of the DI, I meant the whole process, not just the mechanical iris.
I'll try to get these two movies as I don't have them yet.

The ones I've seen have been pretty short. I'm thinking of large ones, like 2000 msec (2 seconds) to really help the iris algorithms.

Also, the delay could vary greatly. Such as 2 seconds with the dynamic iris on, 250 msecs with the full frame interpolation on, and less than 100 msec with little processing on. With an audio output that is pretty much just a buffer and passthrough they could change the delay based on the projector settings.

The largest delays aren't really useful for things like video games, so having either audio output that could be delayed just for certain modes or having some kind of feedback so the projector outputs the proper delay value for the current settings would seem to be useful.

For geeks who are willing to change the settings for their other equipment whenever they change certain projector settings JVC could put a delay value in the information screen that people could use to set their audio delay manually on the other equipment, just as long as that other equipment allowed that much delay.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

While it sounds like a good idea the projector shouldn't need much in terms of "basic controls". I would recommend just setting the HDMI to standard and not touching any of the "basic" controls as they do more damage than good. I would suggest the standard color profile and a gamma of 2.3. After all of this you can adjust the black level adjustment in the gamma menu (where you selected 2.3) until you see digital 18 (or maybe 17, but I doubt you'll see that). After that you should be good for awhile other than any adjustments to display enhancements you want to use (clear motion, e-shift, clear black, etc).

Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

The problem isn't the speed of the iris with the JVC, it is the speed of the gamma changes.

Seems odd that the electronic adjustments don't keep up with the mechanical ones.

How necessary did you find the Sony's DI to get satisfactory dynamic range/black levels from the image? Would the native contrast on it's own be enough for you?

Absolutely, it would be for me, but it might be because in my set up (88" diag 16/9 carada BW from mid-throw at the time I tested the Sony) I could dial max brightness in the iris settings down to the minimum and still get more than 16fL, therefore get maximum native on/off contrast at my throw. I have since moved my screen forward 2' to make the most of the added resolution of 4K / eshift of my upcoming upgrade, and am very close to short throw now (sitting about 1.2SW, tthe rs45 is getting a bit painful to watch), so the black levels would be slightly higher and the native on/off would be slightly less. I might feel differently if I brought the 500ES back in this changed setup.

Someone who needs the extra brightness with a larger screen and needs to open the fixed iris wider might get a flatter picture in low APL scenes, especially with the DI off.

One of the reasons why I want to try an rs49 before making a decision is because in my setup, I have no need for the extra brightness (and the associated heat in a small room without A/C), so the added cost (less in the UK than in the US, but still significant) feels a bit extravagant. In the UK the X700 (rs57) isn't an option for me as its price is only $1500 lower than the 500ES, so while it might sound weird these are the two models I'm looking at.

On another hand, I was able to live (quite happily) with an rs45 for the last two years which I chose over an rs55 and for various reasons I passed last year over an upgrade with an rs48, so the best on/off performance isn't my absolute priority, even if I appreciate it. I try to look at what the additional cost gets me in visible additional PQ. On/off contrast freaks (no judgement ) might feel that the 500ES isn't enough for them.

I personally think that contrast performance is a whole, and the relatively limited native on/off of the Sony is compensated by its significantly higher ANSI contrast in many ways, and its overall excellent DI (in limited mode). In my setup this specific unit threw overall the best picture I've seen in both 2D and 3D, but I haven't seen any of the new JVC models yet, so I can't compare with the new range.

What I can say is that compared to my lowly rs45, it didn't leave me wanting in the black level department in a bat cave at mid-throw with the manual iris fully closed and the dynamic iris off, even if it was a bit flatter in low APL scenes and if its absolute black levels obviously cannot rival the JVCs.

But as my setup is different from most (and definitely from yours, which is superb), I'm not sure that this is really useful.

These projectors need to be seen, ideally in your own room and setup. I understand that many don't have that choice, but on/off numbers and absolute black levels are only a fraction of what makes the picture of the 500/600ES special.

Unlike Zombie, I wasn't able to have one of the new JVCs and the 500ES in my room at the same time (and unlike him I wasn't even able to A/B it with the rs45, I could only watch one or the other at a time), so his upcoming comparative review should be very interesting, and probably much more relevant for most of you guys with significantly larger screens and more spacious rooms than mine.

People talk about Native on/off not being affected, which is true for the meter. However, two additional issues should be noted. Raising the black floor beyond normal perceptible levels even if the white peak is raised the same amount ratio-wise (which is all that happens in native on/off, I think people all agree), well perceptibly a black floor starting too high still does look bad (everyone knows this already, just stating the obvious).

Furthermore, losing too much ANSI, even if you retain the NAtive On/Off, eventually the different shades in the picture would be nearly imperceptible regardless of how much Native On/off you retained. The eye (as noted earlier) does not react exactly the same way as a meter reading and also is non-linear when it comes to light. Try it yourself, place some distracting object in the room that reflects back towards your eyes but not off the screen, and you may still get really close to the same on/off reading, but your eye will be distracted. That's only one thing that can happen in a room, stop wearing them Gold Rolex's you rich bastards...

I know most people know this stuff, I am just pointing it out (not meaning to start an argument).

Well, seeing the Sony VW1000 in action a while back made me start to re-evaluate how much of a Black Level Fiend I want to be. Trade-offs, always trade-offs....

Me too, though it was set up on a huge 5metre wide 2.35:1 screen that it lit up extremely well, yet when there was a fade to black (or a pause while we switched to a different disc) the black remained dark for much longer than my X35 does. I would hope that the II on the new JVCs allows this similar effect, but I'm struggling to understand how the II fits in with the manual iris setting. In my set up for 16:9 content I'm only running -13 after 400+ hours on the lamp and still hit 14fL so I wonder whether I would benefit from the II very much?

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens, sold the lens...now using e-shift.

The problem isn't the speed of the iris with the JVC, it is the speed of the gamma changes. I don't think Darin and I saw any "image pumping" that I would associate with the iris but there were definitely scenes that you saw the gamma shifting and trying to decide where it wanted to end up. This not only effects the color balance but also the detail of a scene. I saw this quite a few times with the scene from The International but didn't see any issues when we looked at the scenes from Riddick. Considering how much the iris looked like it was moving in the lens during some scenes in Riddick I was actually surprised we didn't see any obvious image pumping. In this regard they seem to be doing a pretty spectacular job.

That makes a lot of sense. Another reason my previous point about Gamma Curves was, it depends on the projector to how you do the gamma curve or what you can get away with. After all, most projectors have IRIS's these days (most above $2000 anyways), and now JVC joins in on the fun. Lots of fun them there IRIS's are down here in Tennessee (I don't live in Tennessee, but Knoxville is quite nice, though they did search me at that airport and lose my luggage all in the same day). Doing the same gamma curve on every projector (well you probably should if you are calibrating for someone else), but I mean if it's your own projector, does anyone really use a default gamma and go, oh that is as good as it gets.

Edited
I mean sure we all start with that "perfect calibration", but many of us like to fine tune it afterwards, maybe some like it a bit punchier, maybe others like it a bit more toned down. Everyone that has calibrated has to have go through, it's never perfect enough, wow that number could be 0.00001 closer. Some are more dedicated than others though, I'm too lazy to do a perfect meter calibration. For me, it's more like this was fun at first, now it's work so let's get it looking close by the numbers, then post-adjust a little to my liking, then leave it alone. Otherwise, got better things to do with my time than keep calibrating projectors, and unless you are a Robot-Zombie that reviews projectors in here, you will probably want to just enjoy the show! Thank goodness for Robot Zombies, I am just saying, don't forget to enjoy the show!

Me too, though it was set up on a huge 5metre wide 2.35:1 screen that it lit up extremely well, yet when there was a fade to black (or a pause while we switched to a different disc) the black remained dark for much longer than my X35 does. I would hope that the II on the new JVCs allows this similar effect, but I'm struggling to understand how the II fits in with the manual iris setting. In my set up for 16:9 content I'm only running -13 after 400+ hours on the lamp and still hit 14fL so I wonder whether I would benefit from the II very much?

You might find that with the dynamic iris, you can run with the fixed iris open more.

That would make things like fast forward/rewind, or any kind of on-screen display like selecting menu items on a Blu-ray menu, incredibly frustrating.

Press button on remote, wait 2s, menu finally moves. No bueno.

This would only be for the extremists who are willing to live with such inconveniences for better images. They could disable the dynamic iris (or delay feature) when they wanted to do things where the delay would be an issue.

Good point that it is one reason that those of us who would be willing to living with the tradeoffs are unlikely to get this feature though.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Alright I am setting up my X500 and I need a little guidance. I attached the Focus image and of course the issue isn't as clear in the picture, but underneath each line there is a translucent line, like a halo effect. I notice it when I go to the pixel adjustment as well, I have watched a bit of HDTV and it just doesn't look right. Now I am new to JVC and have only had a DLP so I am unfamiliar with convergence and that sort of thing. Hopefully one of you more experienced users can figure out what I am trying to say.

Alright I am setting up my X500 and I need a little guidance. I attached the Focus image and of course the issue isn't as clear in the picture, but underneath each line there is a translucent line, like a halo effect. I notice it when I go to the pixel adjustment as well, I have watched a bit of HDTV and it just doesn't look right. Now I am new to JVC and have only had a DLP so I am unfamiliar with convergence and that sort of thing. Hopefully one of you more experienced users can figure out what I am trying to say.

That's what I was going to say - run with it more open and give yourself a bigger range. Pierce your retinas on the bright scenes and when it switches to the dark scenes, your pupils are constricted and it will look as black as night

The good thing is, you don't necessarily need the range so you've loads of room to fine tune it to however you like. Me? I absolutely need the range due to no gain and 63sqft of real estate to light up.

I think it would work a treat for you, especially those low apl scenes where the iris closes and your living room will have only a minimal effect due to reduced reflections because of the (a) low apl and (b) closed iris.

Alright I am setting up my X500 and I need a little guidance. I attached the Focus image and of course the issue isn't as clear in the picture, but underneath each line there is a translucent line, like a halo effect. I notice it when I go to the pixel adjustment as well, I have watched a bit of HDTV and it just doesn't look right. Now I am new to JVC and have only had a DLP so I am unfamiliar with convergence and that sort of thing. Hopefully one of you more experienced users can figure out what I am trying to say.

For some reason this year JVC has made e-shift non-defeatable in the built-in focus and convergence patterns. To dial in the focus properly, you need to turn off e-shift then use an external pattern so you can see individual pixels properly. This isn't as important with convergence since you can still see misconvergence even when e-shift is engaged, but being able to,turn off e-shift for all the internal patterns would be useful (and would make the projectors behave just like they have in prior years.

I was talking about a different subject (not about the DI). I'm talking about when people say that On/Off isn't affected by the room, well that's true but it has a double meaning, see the dark scenes are still totally messed up if the black level is boosted by reflections too much (of course there are varying degrees), because the intrascene range narrows. Dark scenes don't need as much ANSI (mainly because ANSI is a bad indicator of dark intrascene contrast), but surprisingly "low apl scenes" still need intrascene contrast in dark scenes (which ANSI does a poor job of telling us), and on/off only does half the job. This gets a bit confusing, but only BECAUSE ANSI is a bad indicator of dark scene contrast do we not need ANSI (maybe confuse some people).

Despite what some may be implying (intentionally or by accident), dark scenes are usually more sensitive to a loss in intrascene contrast in a way because the perceptible range is narrower before the image perceptibly washes out. We don't have a standard way to refer to intrascene contrast, though a histogram can show us, but I mean when speaking in numbers. These two patterns don't really complete the picture when you think of it like this. When dealing histographically with contrast, we often refer to it as a 3-range mechanism at the very least (shadows / mid-tones / highlights), not LOW APL vs. bright scenes, but more of a gradient average across the three ranges. Even further, sometimes we divide it into 6 adjustments or more to enhance the dynamic range.

Think of it this way, if we look at a very dark image with only dim shades of gray in it, and then we see a very bright image with 1/4 of the image showing a picture of a black cave next to a bright ocean, which scene might be referred to generically as more contrasty?

Well obviously, you're generally going to think of the ocean scene with the cave over the dark scene as far as being more contrasty (even though ratio wise it might not be true). The intrascene's overall average white peak (how numerous brighter pixels are in the scene) is too low for what we call "the lower APL scenes", so that when you boost the floor the perceived intrascene ratio is killed FAST because the already perceptible narrow range of the LOW APL scene just got narrower.

We often talk about LOW APL scenes or maybe we say higher gamma in a generic sense, but if we wanted to be more precise, we'd really have to show a histogram of the scene to how the APL brightness was represented across all the ranges. Obviously, in any ambient light, dark scenes are the first to go, and bright scenes last. The same still holds true to a lesser extent for dark scenes in a room with white walls and no ambient light (generally speaking), simple test is to just watch dark scenes in a room with all white walls. It just is happening for a different reason.

I just think people state the theory and it confuses people because realistically the theory is all true, but it's not always fully applicable in the way people possibly are unintentionally pitching it. Yes, on/off still helps rooms with white walls because both dark and white levels are boosted, but how much it helps just depends on a lot of things, it's not always cut and dry as is suggested. Sorry for the long post, but I know if I am not precise someone will hammer me with my own wording.

So thanks to some tips I got my X500 setup nicely. I ended up zooming the image when adjusting the convergence, I also went up to the screen. Turns out I needed very little adjusting. I also did a quick and dirty calibration with the WOW disc and then put in my old standard, Fellow Ship of the Rings. OMFG. I have entered into the world of Home Cinema, lovely just lovely. The Depth and detail the film like quality, oh the humanity. So ya, pretty pretty good.

The ones I've seen have been pretty short. I'm thinking of large ones, like 2000 msec (2 seconds) to really help the iris algorithms...

All right, I'll bite (I never know when you're serious, joking, or just dreaming). The audio's not the problem. I imagine that a 2s read ahead video buffer would be huge (gigabytes) if not compressed. Then you have to have algorithms to sift thru that much data (while keeping up with the video stream). Alternatively, you could create some sort of DCT decode (on the fly) and then process the data (again without falling behind). Either way, it's way over my head (but it doesn't sound like there's any ROI in it for JVC).

That said, a read ahead buffer (in a DI context) makes a lot of sense (so perhaps a more manageable and economical buffer is our future).

I've mentioned this before just for fun, so it would be handy to give more time, but if you're going to give 2 seconds, you mise well just give 5 seconds. I doubt they will ever do it, as it just introduces more issues. Right now the best the IRIS can do is First In - Last Out, hence the Iris gets the data first, processes it, and then reacts last in the firmware code after all other code has processed (assuming that is how it works now). Hence it is the first to get the data, but the last function to be called as far as the code that actually tells the IRIS the position to go to. This means potentially projectors with more Millisecond lag have an easier time with the Iris (it's not true generally given Sony's very capable Iris and low lag, just saying potentially).

Of course totally useless for gaming, 2000 to 5000 milliseconds of lag added, this non-existent feature that will probably never see the light of day would obviously would have to be turned off for all gaming.

I have two options RS 66 vs RS 57 ...I am lost as the price difference is not much , and contrast ratio is actually better 130000:1 on RS 66 vs 120000:1 on RS 57. both have 1300 lumens. I dont care 4k. I know it will another 5 year when its common to really watch 4k material .

Need light to this mind boggling contrast ratios , numbers...if i keep toggling may end up buying large TV finally...but I am sure then I will call it TV room and not theater ;)

So thanks to some tips I got my X500 setup nicely. I ended up zooming the image when adjusting the convergence, I also went up to the screen. Turns out I needed very little adjusting. I also did a quick and dirty calibration with the WOW disc and then put in my old standard, Fellow Ship of the Rings. OMFG. I have entered into the world of Home Cinema, lovely just lovely. The Depth and detail the film like quality, oh the humanity. So ya, pretty pretty good.

That's fantastic! I can't wait to join you as soon as I decide on a screen, lol. What screen (and size) do you have?

You might find that with the dynamic iris, you can run with the fixed iris open more.

But if I'm already hitting my target fL I wouldn't want to open it more; I find the image almost too bright as it is on scenes with lots of white at (measured) 14fL. If I didn't want it any brighter does that mean there is little benefit for II to users like me?

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens, sold the lens...now using e-shift.

But if I'm already hitting my target fL I wouldn't want to open it more; I find the image almost too bright as it is on scenes with lots of white at (measured) 14fL. If I didn't want it any brighter does that mean there is little benefit for II to users like me?

Hopefully we'll find that out soon enough once more reports come flooding in. My guess, is that the more open the aperture, the more benefit you'll get from increased dynamic contrast (but with potential caveat that you could possibly be more susceptible to pumping and gamma/colour shifting at wide open set up)

But even with your relatively closed aperture, you would expect to get at least a triple up on contrast if not more.....how much more noticeable that would be I don't know....